Cargando…

Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation

Knowing when it is convenient to take a turn in a conversation is an important task for dialog partners. As it appears that this decision is made before the transition point has been reached, it seems to involve anticipation. There are a variety of studies in the literature that provide possible exp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wesselmeier, Hendrik, Jansen, Stefanie, Müller, Horst M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904349
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00296
_version_ 1782317972842348544
author Wesselmeier, Hendrik
Jansen, Stefanie
Müller, Horst M.
author_facet Wesselmeier, Hendrik
Jansen, Stefanie
Müller, Horst M.
author_sort Wesselmeier, Hendrik
collection PubMed
description Knowing when it is convenient to take a turn in a conversation is an important task for dialog partners. As it appears that this decision is made before the transition point has been reached, it seems to involve anticipation. There are a variety of studies in the literature that provide possible explanations for turn-end anticipation. This study particularly focuses on how turn-end anticipation relies on syntactic and/or semantic information during utterance processing, as tested with syntactically and semantically violated sentences. With a combination reaction time and EEG experiment, we used the onset latencies of the readiness potential (RP) to uncover possible differences in response preparation. Although the mean anticipation timing accuracy (ATA) values of the behavioral test were all within a similar time range (control sentences: 108 ms, syntactically violated sentences: 93 ms and semantically violated sentences: 116 ms), we found evidence that response preparation is indeed different for syntactically and semantically violated sentences in comparison with control sentences. Our preconscious EEG data, in the form of RP results, indicated a response preparation onset to sentence end interval of 1452 ms in normal sentences, 937 ms in sentences with syntactic violations and 944 ms in sentences with semantic violations. Compared with control sentences, these intervals resulted in a significant RP interruption for both sentence types and indicate an interruption of preconscious response preparation. However, the behavioral response to sentence types occurred at comparable time points.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4034500
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40345002014-06-05 Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation Wesselmeier, Hendrik Jansen, Stefanie Müller, Horst M. Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Knowing when it is convenient to take a turn in a conversation is an important task for dialog partners. As it appears that this decision is made before the transition point has been reached, it seems to involve anticipation. There are a variety of studies in the literature that provide possible explanations for turn-end anticipation. This study particularly focuses on how turn-end anticipation relies on syntactic and/or semantic information during utterance processing, as tested with syntactically and semantically violated sentences. With a combination reaction time and EEG experiment, we used the onset latencies of the readiness potential (RP) to uncover possible differences in response preparation. Although the mean anticipation timing accuracy (ATA) values of the behavioral test were all within a similar time range (control sentences: 108 ms, syntactically violated sentences: 93 ms and semantically violated sentences: 116 ms), we found evidence that response preparation is indeed different for syntactically and semantically violated sentences in comparison with control sentences. Our preconscious EEG data, in the form of RP results, indicated a response preparation onset to sentence end interval of 1452 ms in normal sentences, 937 ms in sentences with syntactic violations and 944 ms in sentences with semantic violations. Compared with control sentences, these intervals resulted in a significant RP interruption for both sentence types and indicate an interruption of preconscious response preparation. However, the behavioral response to sentence types occurred at comparable time points. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4034500/ /pubmed/24904349 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00296 Text en Copyright © 2014 Wesselmeier, Jansen and Müller. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Wesselmeier, Hendrik
Jansen, Stefanie
Müller, Horst M.
Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
title Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
title_full Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
title_fullStr Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
title_full_unstemmed Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
title_short Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
title_sort influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904349
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00296
work_keys_str_mv AT wesselmeierhendrik influencesofsemanticandsyntacticincongruenceonreadinesspotentialinturnendanticipation
AT jansenstefanie influencesofsemanticandsyntacticincongruenceonreadinesspotentialinturnendanticipation
AT mullerhorstm influencesofsemanticandsyntacticincongruenceonreadinesspotentialinturnendanticipation